Today is the second day of the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) deliberations on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and, by implication, of same-sex marriage.
I woke up to a network TV reporter intoning that SCOTUS’s decision will hang on two justices: Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.
God help us.
Recall that Chief Justice John Roberts was the critical vote that accounted for SCOTUS’s ruling in favor of Obamacare last June, by upholding the most controversial part of the “health care” law — individual mandate. SCOTUS’s “reasoning” was that the Individual Mandate is a tax, and it is within Congress’ power to tax (and spend).
Roberts’ vote on the side of the leftist justices came as a rude surprise to Conservatives. By all accounts, Obamacare was set to be defeated. Five of the conservative justices had even prepared a majority opinion against Obamacare, until one of them — John Roberts — at the 11th hour, changed his mind, and switched his vote. The formerly majority opinion had to be quickly re-written as a minority dissent.
Roberts’ 11th-hour abrupt switch confounded everyone. Why would an alleged “strict constructionist” who ought to favor limiting governmental power in favor of individual choice, turn into the fifth and deciding vote for Obamacare, which is already changing the United States as we’ve known it. And at the last minute?
Below is an account of what could have led him to switch betray. (Note: The essay is quite long and should be relegated to the realm of unconfirmed rumors.) Briefly, the contention is that Roberts was blackmailed to switch his vote because he and his wife had illegally adopted two infants from Ireland.
Since Roberts is (nominally) Catholic, and the Catholic Church is most decidedly against same-sex marriage (notwithstanding the heretical stance of “liberal” nuns and priests), if Roberts casts his lot in favor of same-sex marriage, it will lend credence to the blackmail rumor.
The following (long) article was first posted on LibertyCaucus.net, and then republished by other sites. (Warning: If you go to the LibertyCaucus.net link, you’ll get a red “Dangerous Site” message from McAfee.)
~Eowyn
Roberts swearing in the POS a second time in 2009
How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare
Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.
In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident.
In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process… however there is more to the story.
Drudge did an article in 2005
http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”
Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?
This is not clear … — the Associated Press reports that they were “adopted from Latin America.” This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American.1
TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts’s (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.”
How were the Children Adopted?
According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts’s sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.
As explained by Families for Private Adoption, “[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency.”2
But was Robert’s adoption utilizing “a legal method”?
Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts “spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy,” but “he did not play a central role,” because ” at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son.”
It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland. Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts’ confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth.
However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.
This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.
Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws — entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland.
Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation. Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts’ for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as “infants”.
Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.
That would be an inaccurate belief. As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up their children except for that profit. Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity, and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That’s an important ethical recognition.
Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.
It all now makes sense.
The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure. Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.
This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.
… And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government. Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.
And it is consistent with Obama’s Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed records in order to win election.
